This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/us/mongols-informant.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judge Rejects Claim That Mongols Biker Club Leader Was a ‘Rat’ Judge Rejects Claim That Mongols Biker Club Leader Was a ‘Rat’
(32 minutes later)
SANTA ANA, Calif. — After federal prosecutors won a landmark racketeering conviction against the Mongols motorcycle club, in an attempt to put an end to the outlaw group’s long record of murder, attempted murder and drug dealing, the Mongols countered with an unusual claim: Their leader, they said, had been secretly helping the government in its efforts to bring down the organization.SANTA ANA, Calif. — After federal prosecutors won a landmark racketeering conviction against the Mongols motorcycle club, in an attempt to put an end to the outlaw group’s long record of murder, attempted murder and drug dealing, the Mongols countered with an unusual claim: Their leader, they said, had been secretly helping the government in its efforts to bring down the organization.
Three years after the 2018 case, the Mongols’ lawyers came forward last year with claims that the group’s former president, David Santillan, had been surreptitiously cooperating with a special agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for years and had sabotaged the defense.Three years after the 2018 case, the Mongols’ lawyers came forward last year with claims that the group’s former president, David Santillan, had been surreptitiously cooperating with a special agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for years and had sabotaged the defense.
“He is a rat,” Mr. Santillan’s wife, Annie, suggested in a text message that became a key piece of evidence in the case against the group, which was founded in Southern California in 1969 and whose members are mostly Hispanic. She later recanted the assertion.“He is a rat,” Mr. Santillan’s wife, Annie, suggested in a text message that became a key piece of evidence in the case against the group, which was founded in Southern California in 1969 and whose members are mostly Hispanic. She later recanted the assertion.
On Thursday, after hearing testimony from more than a dozen witnesses, including from Mr. Santillan himself, over the past several months, Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., found that there was no convincing evidence of such a claim and refused to set aside racketeering and conspiracy convictions as well as a penalty of $500,000.On Thursday, after hearing testimony from more than a dozen witnesses, including from Mr. Santillan himself, over the past several months, Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., found that there was no convincing evidence of such a claim and refused to set aside racketeering and conspiracy convictions as well as a penalty of $500,000.
“I don’t find there’s sufficient cooperation” to merit overturning the conviction, Judge Carter said in a ruling from the bench. “Nor do I believe that there would be, quite frankly, an acquittal in a second trial.”“I don’t find there’s sufficient cooperation” to merit overturning the conviction, Judge Carter said in a ruling from the bench. “Nor do I believe that there would be, quite frankly, an acquittal in a second trial.”
Mr. Santillan, who led the Mongols for nearly 13 years until he was voted out of the club in July of last year, vehemently denied that he had ever betrayed the group. After Judge Carter’s ruling, he declared vindication in what he said was “a contrived internal political witch hunt to smear my name and to get me dethroned.”Mr. Santillan, who led the Mongols for nearly 13 years until he was voted out of the club in July of last year, vehemently denied that he had ever betrayed the group. After Judge Carter’s ruling, he declared vindication in what he said was “a contrived internal political witch hunt to smear my name and to get me dethroned.”
The Mongols claimed in their motion for a new trial that Mr. Santillan had an inappropriate working relationship over the years with the lead A.T.F. agent on the case, John Ciccone, sharing inside information about the club in exchange for lighter penalties for various offenses. Mr. Ciccone, who retired last year, testified that Mr. Santillan never served as an informant for the agency, nor did he pass on any defense information during the trial. He also denied that he ever helped Mr. Santillan win lenient treatment in his brushes with the law, which included a crash in his Mercedes five years ago while driving impaired.The Mongols claimed in their motion for a new trial that Mr. Santillan had an inappropriate working relationship over the years with the lead A.T.F. agent on the case, John Ciccone, sharing inside information about the club in exchange for lighter penalties for various offenses. Mr. Ciccone, who retired last year, testified that Mr. Santillan never served as an informant for the agency, nor did he pass on any defense information during the trial. He also denied that he ever helped Mr. Santillan win lenient treatment in his brushes with the law, which included a crash in his Mercedes five years ago while driving impaired.
Communications with Mr. Santillan, Mr. Ciccone said, were limited to such matters as ensuring public safety at Mongols events. “We’ll let you guys have your fun, but keep your people in check, so to speak,” he testified in June. He explained: “We wanted them to know we were there monitoring.”Communications with Mr. Santillan, Mr. Ciccone said, were limited to such matters as ensuring public safety at Mongols events. “We’ll let you guys have your fun, but keep your people in check, so to speak,” he testified in June. He explained: “We wanted them to know we were there monitoring.”
A supervisory special agent with the A.T.F. told the court that she had checked an agency database containing information on confidential informants dating back to 2002, and that Mr. Santillan did not come up as one. Representatives from several local law enforcement departments also said they had no such records.A supervisory special agent with the A.T.F. told the court that she had checked an agency database containing information on confidential informants dating back to 2002, and that Mr. Santillan did not come up as one. Representatives from several local law enforcement departments also said they had no such records.
At the core of the case was a video of a conversation between Mr. Santillan and his wife that she had passed on to members of the biker club last year, accompanied by a text message in which she told them that her husband had been a confidential government informant.At the core of the case was a video of a conversation between Mr. Santillan and his wife that she had passed on to members of the biker club last year, accompanied by a text message in which she told them that her husband had been a confidential government informant.
“In other words,” Ms. Santillan wrote in the text, “he is a rat.” In the video, played several times during the hearings, Ms. Santillan is talking to her husband on speakerphone when he informs her that Mr. Ciccone will be retiring. “He can’t protect me, he told me, so we have to have an exit strategy, he told me,” Mr. Santillan, who sounded drunk and sounded distraught, said to her.“In other words,” Ms. Santillan wrote in the text, “he is a rat.” In the video, played several times during the hearings, Ms. Santillan is talking to her husband on speakerphone when he informs her that Mr. Ciccone will be retiring. “He can’t protect me, he told me, so we have to have an exit strategy, he told me,” Mr. Santillan, who sounded drunk and sounded distraught, said to her.
The video was recorded in June of last year, when, Ms. Santillan said, she felt scorned because her husband had been unfaithful and after she had sought a restraining order against him for what she claimed was physical abuse. The video was recorded in June of last year, when, Ms. Santillan said, she felt scorned because her husband had been unfaithful and after she had obtained a restraining order against him for what she claimed was physical abuse.
In court testimony and in an earlier interview, Ms. Santillan said she had shared the video and the text with the Mongols in an attempt to “destroy” her husband but had since regretted it; she said she was not being truthful when she claimed he had been an informant.In court testimony and in an earlier interview, Ms. Santillan said she had shared the video and the text with the Mongols in an attempt to “destroy” her husband but had since regretted it; she said she was not being truthful when she claimed he had been an informant.
One of the club’s defense lawyers during the original trial, Stephen Stubbs, testified that Mr. Santillan had told him during the trial that he was regularly meeting with Mr. Ciccone as the proceedings were going on, even as he was overseeing the club’s defense team.One of the club’s defense lawyers during the original trial, Stephen Stubbs, testified that Mr. Santillan had told him during the trial that he was regularly meeting with Mr. Ciccone as the proceedings were going on, even as he was overseeing the club’s defense team.
“David told me that they had been meeting every day at Starbucks before trial until Judge Carter told them not to because a juror saw them together,” Mr. Stubbs testified in August.“David told me that they had been meeting every day at Starbucks before trial until Judge Carter told them not to because a juror saw them together,” Mr. Stubbs testified in August.
On the stand, Mr. Santillan called the claims about his daily meetings with Mr. Ciccone “an absolute lie.” (He acknowledged encountering Mr. Ciccone by chance at a Starbucks near the courthouse once during the trial.)On the stand, Mr. Santillan called the claims about his daily meetings with Mr. Ciccone “an absolute lie.” (He acknowledged encountering Mr. Ciccone by chance at a Starbucks near the courthouse once during the trial.)
Judge Carter conducted an extensive inquiry to unearth any evidence that Mr. Santillan had cooperated with law enforcement and acknowledged his difficulty in explaining away the contents of the video.Judge Carter conducted an extensive inquiry to unearth any evidence that Mr. Santillan had cooperated with law enforcement and acknowledged his difficulty in explaining away the contents of the video.
But he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to set aside the convictions, and that the club had made no showing that it was likely to prevail in any retrial. A federal appeals court is separately considering an appeal of the conviction.But he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to set aside the convictions, and that the club had made no showing that it was likely to prevail in any retrial. A federal appeals court is separately considering an appeal of the conviction.
The original case attracted widespread attention because of the federal government’s unusual attempt to force the Mongols to forfeit their rights to the club’s trademarked logo — a drawing of a brawny Genghis Khan-like figure riding a chopper while brandishing a sword — and thus relinquish a big source of the organization’s mystique. A jury ordered the forfeiture, but Judge Carter reversed the order, concluding that it infringed on the group’s constitutional rights.The original case attracted widespread attention because of the federal government’s unusual attempt to force the Mongols to forfeit their rights to the club’s trademarked logo — a drawing of a brawny Genghis Khan-like figure riding a chopper while brandishing a sword — and thus relinquish a big source of the organization’s mystique. A jury ordered the forfeiture, but Judge Carter reversed the order, concluding that it infringed on the group’s constitutional rights.
The government has filed a separate appeal on that issue, seeking a narrower forfeiture order that would take away the club’s right to trademark exclusivity over the logo.The government has filed a separate appeal on that issue, seeking a narrower forfeiture order that would take away the club’s right to trademark exclusivity over the logo.
It is the First Amendment issues associated with the case that are most important, Judge Carter said on Thursday, and whether the government has the right to seize control of a trademarked emblem as a way of eliminating a group’s ability to operate and recruit.It is the First Amendment issues associated with the case that are most important, Judge Carter said on Thursday, and whether the government has the right to seize control of a trademarked emblem as a way of eliminating a group’s ability to operate and recruit.
“The ultimate implications for society are paramount here,” he said. “These registrations are something that need to be examined by the circuit, maybe the Supreme Court.”“The ultimate implications for society are paramount here,” he said. “These registrations are something that need to be examined by the circuit, maybe the Supreme Court.”
Ethan Tate, Meghann M. Cuniff and Lauren Herstik contributed reporting.Ethan Tate, Meghann M. Cuniff and Lauren Herstik contributed reporting.